Appeal 2007-2018
Application 09/810,377
Coneys also discloses that “the blended mixture of the radiopaque
material defining the layer 14 may include between twenty percent (20%)
and thirty percent (30%) fluorinated ethylenepropylene with the remaining
seventy percent (70%) to eighty percent (80%) being one of the radiopaque
materials” and that “the radiopaque material preferably comprises between
twelve percent (12%) and twenty-five percent (25%) of the total weight of
the material making up the tube” (id. at col. 3, ll. 50-61). We agree that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the
polyether block amide in both the shaft and distal tip section of Parker’s
device with the polyfluorinated ethylenepropylene described in Coneys,
since both were known to be useful materials for catheters. Cf. KSR Int’l v.
Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (“The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Appellants argue that neither Parker nor Coneys “teaches or suggests
the use of highly-loaded FEP” (Br. 7). In particular, Appellants argues that,
“[a]ccording to Coneys, when highly loaded FEP is used in a medical
device, the highly loaded FEP layer must be surrounded by a covering of
virgin FEP” (id. at 7-8). “As a result, due to the presence of the non-
radiopaque envelope surrounding the loaded radiopaque layer, the actual
radiopacity of the distal portion of the Coneys tube is limited to a level of
between 12 and 25 percent by weight” (id. at 8).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Although Coneys discloses a
catheter tube containing 12-25% by weight radiopaque material, Coneys
does not suggest that more highly loaded FEP cannot be obtained. In fact,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013